W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: #337: Field names in cache-control header arguments

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:42:50 +1100
Cc: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <135E31D1-EE0C-46CC-BF7C-4CBF63D8A9B4@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Incorporated for -19. I used Roy's suggestion, except with "have" instead of "match".

On 05/03/2012, at 4:54 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2012, at 7:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> Re-reading 2616, I think I agree (even if not entirely happy with it).
>> 
>> Suggested rewrite:
>> 
>> Index: p6-cache.xml
>> ===================================================================
>> --- p6-cache.xml	(revision 1562)
>> +++ p6-cache.xml	(working copy)
>> @@ -1484,12 +1484,12 @@
>>      using it to satisfy a request without contacting it, even by caches that
>>      have been configured to return stale responses.</t>
>>      <t>If the no-cache response directive specifies one or more field-names,
>> -      this requirement is limited to the field-values associated with the
>> -      listed response header fields. That is, a cache &MUST-NOT; send the 
>> -      specified field-name(s) in the response to a subsequent request without successful
>> -      validation on the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent
>> -      the re-use of certain header fields in a response, while still allowing
>> -      caching of the rest of the response.</t>
>> +      then a cache MAY use the response to satisfy a subsequent request,
>> +      subject to any other restrictions on caching. However, the specified
>> +      field-name(s) &MUST-NOT; be sent in the response to a subsequent request
>> +      without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an
>> +      origin server to prevent the re-use of certain header fields in a
>> +      response, while still allowing caching of the rest of the response.</t>      
> 
> I think you want to say 
> 
>       However, any header fields in the response that match the field-name(s)
>       listed &MUST-NOT; be sent in a response to a subsequent request
> 
> ....Roy

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:43:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT